10/20/2025    Alan MacGill, DPM

Recent COTH ACGME Survey Results

I wanted to share the results of a recent COTH
Program Directors survey on the ACGME issue that
has been discussed in the profession. I did not
initiate this survey, but did participate in it.

2025 COTH ACGME Survey Results

The Council of Teaching Hospitals (COTH) has
conducted a survey of podiatric residency program
directors (PDs) given the recent dialogue
regarding the possibility of transitioning
accreditation of our residency programs away from
the CPME and to the ACGME. One hundred and thirty-
one PDs completed the survey for a response rate
of 59.8% (131/219).

90.1% (118/131) of PDs reported “I have a
generally positive view of the CPME and think that
they are largely supportive of residents, program
directors and the profession” while 9.9% (13/131)
reported “I have a negative view of the CPME
and think that our profession should look to other
sources of accreditation”. We appreciate the
relatively dichotomous nature of that question, so
also allowed for an open response section for PDs
to provide their personal thoughts and opinions on
the possibility of ACGME accreditation. 90 PDs
responded in this open section. Twenty (22.2%
[20/90]) specifically voiced either support of
ACGME accreditation of podiatric residency
programs or at the very least expressed
support for initiating an exploratory discussion
with the ACGME. 70 (77.8% [70/90]) respondents
commented with specific opposition.

We also asked about some key specific differences
between CPME and ACGME requirements, such as
required faculty development (ACGME 2.8.e),
required faculty surveys (ACGME 2.11.a), required
faculty accomplishments (ACGME 4.14), milestone
requirements (ACGME 5.1.b), and required Clinical
Competency Committees (ACGME 5.3). A majority
of PDs felt as though they could meet these
requirements, whereas a minority ranging from
20.6%-45.8% felt that these specific requirements
“would be a challenge given our resources”.

9.2% (13/131) of respondents reported that their
program’s sponsoring institution currently does
not primarily sponsor any ACGME programs. 51.2%
(67/131) reported being primarily employed by the
sponsoring institution. 83.2% (109/131) reported
having less than or equal to 10 core faculty
members who regularly participate in academic
events, resident evaluations, and the annual
program evaluation. 45.0% (59/131) reported having
less than or equal to 5 core faculty members who
regularly participate in academic events, resident
evaluations, and the annual program evaluation.
And 47.3% (62/131) reported that faculty members
other than the PD receive a stipend from the
sponsoring institution for their role with
resident education.

While COTH is going to avoid subjective
interpretation of these raw survey results, we
will say that we do not feel a mandate from our
members to pursue or support the possibility of an
accreditation change of podiatric medicine and
surgery residency programs.

Other messages in this thread:

---

11/22/2025    Lawrence Oloff, DPM

Recent COTH ACGME Survey Results (Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD)

Passion is not a bad thing except when it becomes
an obsession, lacks reason, and does not have
respect for others’ positions. Rod, that is what
your passion has become. I apologize if this seems
a bit harsh, but when you begin to accuse
residency directors who are opposed to ACGME do so
because of their wallets is concerning. This is
just plain insulting and has no basis in fact.
There are three residencies where I am a program
director: Orthopedics, Medicine and Podiatry. All
three PD get a stipend, whether they are ACGME or
CPME. As a PD for many years, I can assure you
that the time and commitment is well beyond any
stipend.

I cannot imagine anyone who would not make more
money if that same time were spent in private
practice. Every year, my wife and adult children
chastise me for the off-hours time spent educating
residents at the expense of family time. I think
you owe an apology to all the program directors in
the country. Your remarks do not do you justice.

Your over-the-top response to the COTH survey on
ACGME is equally disturbing. This is not a
statistical power analysis study. It was a simple
survey, no less and no more. Your third degree of
the author of the post was unnecessary and makes
one question your motives again. I can only assume
your motives are genuine, but the tone and the
manner is not consistent with that motive.

I do not know the answer about whether ACGME is
good for us or not. That answer is above my pay
grade. What is not is my impression of the
profession. I do not think that a DO degree
change, adoption of ACGME, or whatever else anyone
thinks would melt away any barriers we have with
medicine. I think we are part of medicine. All you
have to do is look around you.

Podiatrists are chief of staffs of hospitals, have
academic appointments in medical schools, are
major researchers in institutions, are on board of
trustees of major medical groups, and so on and so
on. That happened by being good at what we do. I
feel like you are in a time warp, stuck in the
podiatry we both grew up in during the seventies,
eighties , and nineties. Those times are mostly
gone. What is left will also be gone as a result
of the natural progression of our profession.

Lawrence Oloff , DPM, San Francisco, CA

---

10/21/2025    Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD

Recent COTH ACGME Survey Results (Alan MacGill, DPM)

Dr. MacGill, thank you for the recent COTH survey
you shared with us. I have some questions perhaps
you could answer before the profession places
credibility in what you shared with us.

1. What is your position within the Council of
Teaching Hospitals? I do not see your name listed
as a member of the Council.

2. Who commissioned this survey? Did you take up
this task by yourself? Did you send out a survey to
every podiatric residency director in the U.S.?

3. How many times did you send it to whomever you
sent it to? Was it sent once, twice or three
times? The response rate is rather low to place
credence in any survey, especially one of such
importance. How much time was given between the
time you sent the survey and when you submitted
your report to PM News?

4. Were the results of your survey reviewed by
COTH members before they were sent to PM News? If
so, who reviewed the results and was your report
edited by COTH member(s)?

5. Could you please send a copy of the complete
survey instrument to me through PM News? I am sure
the profession is interested and would like a
chance for the to peruse the entire survey and
response? It seems unfair to cherry pick some
responses and neglect others.

6. I find serious threats to the Internal and
External Validity of this survey and would
appreciate seeing the entire survey including the
open-ended responses along with the multiple-
choice responses.

7. Does every person this survey was sent to have
a financial interest in a residency program, and
if so, could you share that with the readers of PM
News? The mean and median amounts should suffice.

8. If you are involved with COTH in a capacity
other than as a residency director, what is that
position? Every bit of information is crucial to
the real stakeholders of the future of podiatry.
They are all the members of the profession who are
concerned at this critical time as was voiced by
Ross Feinman, DPM in the same edition of PM News
as your report.

9. In your opinion, why do you think the response
to your survey instrument was so poor, especially,
if as residency directors, they are being
compensated?

10.I anticipate this request will be published by
PM News and believe faithful readers of PM News
eagerly await your reply.

Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD, Columbus, OH